About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
organization. it belongs to no state. attacking states, laying low state government, defeating the taliban, al qaeda, making war in it will not stop it because terrorism like steanlt like markets are independenter in their character. what we have created beginning of the 21st century is a deep symmetry between the challenges we face and the political response the political institutions we have to respond to that. every challenge is interdependent global cross frontier and the primary political actors that respond are bounded, frontiered, independent nation states. and in that a symmetry, you can see the dysfunction of the modern world. we watch, for example, starting four or five years ago in copenhagen and going through mexico city and due by and recent meetings where 180 or 190 nations came together to renew the protocol already out of date in term of the ecological challenges but to embrace that now and failing to do so. and going home and saying that is because our sovereignty said china, the u.s., now canada, even leaders doesn't permit us to monitor. doesn't permit us to report to intern
, the taliban and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. there is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely pilotted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield at least when the country involved con cents or is unwilling to take action against a threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question, the ability to target a specific individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. here, i think it is useful to consider such strikes against the basic principle of the law of war that govern the use of force. targeted strikes conform to the principle of necessity. requirement that the target has definite military value. in this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. we have the authority to target them with lethal force, just as we target enemy leaders in past conflicts such as them and the
out secret effort to persuade the taliban to expel bin laden. as we know, bin laden was not expelled. three months later, his wrath was unleashed with an attack on our embassies. did you advise director tenant against this operation? and if so, why? >> i had a conversation with george and that at the time. every single cia manager, george tennant as deputy director of operations at the time, and other individuals at the counter-terrorism center argued against that operation as well because it was not well grounded in intelligence, and its chances of success were minimal. and it was likely that other individuals would be killed. when i was involved in those discussions, i provided the director and others my professional advice about whether i thought that operation should go forward. i also was engaged in discussion with the saudi government at the time. and i encouraged certain action to be taken to put pressure on the taliban as well as bin laden. >> i take it that your answer to my question is that you did advise in favor of the cancellation of that operation. >> based on what i ha
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)